Would I be unreasonable to do either of these things? To tell a Sikh man

[Wheezo]

1. ... that if he wants to avoid being racially attacked he should remove his turban because to wear something so obviously advertising his 'difference' is to invite racial abuse of some kind which he could do more to avoid (same goes for anyone wearing clothes with religious/cultural/non-western/non-white associations that draws attention to their 'difference')

1. Attend a Black Lawyers' Conference (I'm orange white btw) and attempt to join in discussions about my experience of being discriminated against on the basis that my addiction to fake tan is limiting my career prospects

I think someone who did either of these things would be pretty darn unreasonable but I am coming across opinions that would suggest I am the unreasonable one so just testing it out in the blazing furnace of AIBU to see if it's actually just me.

Not just you.

Definitely not just you.

In fact, I am

I need to explain why though PaisleyLeaf - why do you think either of those things are unreasonable. It's not being racist, it's actually trying to be helpful - I don't want the Sikh man to be racially attacked and I am empathising with and wanting to join in with the Black Lawyer's Conference - so what can possibly be unreasonable about that?

Well young women shouldn't drink or wear short skirts - that's inviting rape, no?

Your want a Sikh man to remove his turban? Dream on!

Does that help put in in perspective?

You're not respecting difference (and in fact since wearing his turban is one of the 5Ks, you're belittling his religious belief). You're suggesting that being Sikh is the problem to be solved, rather than fvckwits shouting abuse in the street (it's a bit like that school "act less gay and you won't be bullied" story a few months ago).

Well, regarding the Sikh man, it's not the burden of any 'different' individual to conform to avoid abuse. Gay people shouldn't have to act straight, women shouldn't have to dress cautiously, and people shouldn't have to (try to) modify any racial or ethnic characteristics to satisfy a bigoted or violently inclined mainstream.

Removing the turban isn't an easy choice. It has consequences in the community, and consequences for someone's sense of identity. And what to do with the hair -- cut it, just to go out late that occasional night? Then it wouldn't sit right under the turban afterwards ... (I know some Sikhs quite well).

As for the conference, I think that discrimination on the basis of a chosen appearance is significant and might be related and of interest to some of those at the conference. However, it is very different to discrimination on the basis of something permanent, and something culturally and historically informed. Discrimination against those of African heritage has a long, varied and pretty disgusting history, unlike the kind of discrimination a fake-tan addict might have faced. It would have impacted the culture and social experience of people from birth.

So while it might be an interesting discussion, it is unreasonable to equate all forms of discrimination, and it is also unreasonable of a society to demand conformity on the rationale that non-conformity inspires racism or violence.

Does that help?

It's easy to explain for the Sikh one- that's victim blaming - so racist tossers are absolved of responsibility by a man's decision to dress according to his culture/religion. It's easier to look at the different person than to examine why some people feel the need to attack. It almost legitimises them, and they do not deserve it.

The second one - that is massively unreasonable. How on earth could a decision to slap oompa loompa chemicals on yourself and then suffer the sneers compare to being discrimated against from birth because of your natural skin colour? No we should not judge but really? Do you expect sympathy from BLC?

Would like an example of faketanism too please.

Buttwart - But is it really no different to me advising a young woman not to advertise the fact that she's a female (as hard to disguise as colour of skin) to avoid being raped? Is the analogy/parallel completely the same?

OldGreyWiffleTest It's for his own safety though - he would be less likely to be attacked if he wasn't advertising his difference.

MrsCarrie I would like to respect his difference but I am more concerned for his safety. I can't stop racist attackers but I can help him to see he is putting himself at risk can't I?

1. It's not the responsibility of the Sikh man if other people are racist - he cannot control the actions of other people.

1. Fake tan is not the same as being black! You cannot compare thousands of years of racial oppression and slavery to a fashion gimmick.

Is this a colleague of yours, OP?

x-posted loads with more articulate posters

Afussy Kind of helps - but do you think the Black Lawyers' Conference would be unreasonable in stopping me from attending if I announced I wanted to come and get involved and speak about my own experiences of discrimination. Do you think they should be compelled to let me attend?

katiepoes there was a thread a while back with the OP wanting to tell a fellow women colleague that her fake tan was 'unprofessional' despite her being good at her job. I wondered whether it was me!

He wouldn't be racially attacked for being a Sikh though, but for being Asian. Removing his turban and cutting his hair would make no difference. Your average racist thug is going to thump him for being a 'Paki', not because they have a philosophical disagreement with the beliefs of Guru Nanak!

No in the case of religious difference, the responsibility lies with the person who is being racist not in the person 'advertising' their differences. Actually, even using the word advertising suggests that the responsibility lies with the Sikh man and he 'should get on and blend within the english society better than he does'.
You are not protecting anyone by telling him to take his turban off. You actually maintain the status quo and feeding racism. If one can take himself less 'visible' why can't all the other do it too?

The conference with black lawyers.... well tbh they would be just as racists doing that than the people they accused to be racist against them. Two wrongs don't make a right and all that.
However, you can not compare discrimination for skin colour and discrimination if you use fake tan as in the second case, this is something you can change if you wish (unless you do it for health/religious reasons in which case you are being discriminated but not because of your skin colour)

huge It's not a colleague - it is however hypotheticals. I have used both of these analogies recently and been told they are not the same ....as women being told to dress differently to avoid rape, or born women not being allowed to have a conference where men are not allowed to attend. And I often think if this was a race issue there would be no question that this would be unreasonable so I give these analogies and the people I am debating with actually start to to consider whether Sikh men should remove their turbans...they are so entrenched that it seems that even when you give a non-racist person who is showing sexist tendencies analogies involving race, they would rather move the goalposts to becoming a bit more racist than they would to becoming a bit less sexist. So I wonder why that is?

wheezo I think they should be compelled to let you attend if you wish to talk about your own experience about discrimination based on the skin colour alone.

The fake tan issue is very different though. Fake tan can look unprofessional just as a tatoo would be looked upon in some professions (let's say in the City) or wearing some type of earrings of make up or clothes. That's a cultural issue nit a discrimination.

they would rather move the goalposts to becoming a bit more racist than they would to becoming a bit less sexist.
Easy explanation about that.
Being sexist isn't seen as an 'offence' and despicable as yet whereas being racist is.
Our society is sexist so that attitude is OK.

Good post op, food for thought

I cannot speak - my jaw has just hit the floor!

I don't wish to be 'difficult' but surely anyone could attend a Black lawyers Conference, as an observer perhaps? Or something..

Catkins I appreciate removing the turban would not disguise someone's colour of their skin - so should non-white people be encouraged to use that awful skin lightening stuff to avoid being identified as non-white and therefore at risk of racial abuse?

Lady So my fake tan (probably been over using for a good 10 years) and other people's preference for not liking fake tan or viewing it as unprofessional puts me on a par with a roomful of people who can't just choose to change the colour of their skin like I have done? I can assume we share common experiences of discrimination springing from the same root cause and call them racist if they don't agree with me?

WTAF!

Who on earth would anyone try to tackle the fact that everyone looks different instead of the fact that there are ignorant, abusive people who will look for any reason to cause harm?

Non-white people should not be encouraged to look more white, society as a whole should be encouraged to be tolerant and respect and celebrate differences.

I can assume we share common experiences of discrimination springing from the same root cause and call them racist if they don't agree with me?

No, you can't assume this. Your discrimination does not come from the same root cause. You are not being victimised for the colour of your skin if you are orange, but for your vanity and bad application of a product